gMW$ m i|  Sil  i^R  s|te$§S  f>v lllte <<  vT'^  iflii 

3S1-3  • 

m»  a *!ii|iiiii!iii:0s| 

Ma_ah,  E.T^.O.  VOT1 

AroM-ment  g^a-ln  vt  “the 

|3 or “t a. ”ti  on  0-f  2LrmS. 


Reprinted  from  The  Annals  of  the  American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social 
Science,  Philadelphia,  July,  1915. 

Publication  No.  914. 

AN  ARGUMENT  AGAINST  THE  EXPORTATION  OF  ARMS 

By  Edmund  von  Mach, 

Cambridge,  Mass. 

The  Democratic  Text  Book,  1914,  issued  by  the  Democratic 
Congressional  Committee  and  The  Democratic  National  Com- 
mittee, contains  on  page  43  the  following  announcement  by  Hon. 
W.  J.  Bryan,  Secretary  of  State: 

The  announcement  made  by  this  government,  that  it  regards  the  making  of 
loans  by  American  citizens  to  the  governments  of  nations  engaged  in  war  as  in- 
consistent with  the  spirit  of  neutrality,  has  created  a profound  impression  through- 
out the  world.  It  is  the  first  time  that  a great  nation  has  taken  this  stand  on  the 
subject  of  war  loans.  The  matter  has  been  discussed  at  The  Hague  and  at  peace 
conferences,  but  it  encountered  so  much  opposition  that  nothing  tangible  has  re- 
sulted. The  president,  therefore,  blazes  a new  way  when,  without  conference 
with  other  nations  and  without  support  from  Conventions,  he  commits  this  nation 
to  his  policy. 

It  is  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of  neutrality  for  a neutral  nation  to  make 
loans  to  belligerent  nations,  for  money  is  the  worst  of  contraband. 

In  these  two  paragraphs  Mr.  Bryan  himself  has  refuted  all  the 
arguments  of  the  opponents  of  a law  laying  an  embargo  on  the  ex- 
port of  munitions  of  war. 

It  is,  moreover,  noticeable  that  he  uses  the  expressions  “ loans 
by  American  citizens  to  the  governments  of  nations  engaged  in 
& war”  and  “a  neutral  nation  to  make  loans  to  belligerent  nations” 
as  synonymous  so  far  as  America  is  concerned.  And  so  it  should  be, 
for  here  the  sovereignty  is  the  people’s,  and  the  government  is  theirs, 
too.  It  is  impossible  to  quote  as  true  for  America  those  passages 
of  the  so-called  Law  of  Nations — which  really  represents  the  crys- 
tallized customs  of  Europe — which  say  that  citizens  either  indi- 
^vidually  or  collectively  can  do  what  the  government  cannot  do. 
^The  American  government  is,  at  least  in  theory,  the  expression  of 

— the  collective  will  of  the  people. 

President  Cleveland  expressed  this  idea  in  his  annual  message 

- to  Congress,  December  2,  189.5,  when  he  said : 

The  performance  of  this  duty  [i.e.,  to  observe  in  “good  faith”  neutrality 
toward  Spain]  should  not  be  made  more  difficult  by  a disregard  on  the  part  of  our 

1 


317521 


2 


The  Annals  of  the  American  Academy 


citizens  of  the  obligations  growing  out  of  their  allegiance  to  their  country  which 
should  restrain  them  from  violating  as  individuals  the  neutrality  which  the  nation 
of  which  they  are  members  is  bound  to  observe  in  its  relations  to  friendly  sover- 
eign states. 

And  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has  said  (14  How. 
38,  49) : 

For  as  the  sovereignty  resides  in  the  people,  every  citizen  is  a portion  of  it, 
and  is  himself  personally  bound  by  the  laws  which  the  representatives  of  the 
sovereignty  may  pass,  or  the  treaties  into  which  they  may  enter,  within  the  scope 
of  their  delegated  authority.  And  when  that  authority  has  plighted  its  faith  to 
another  nation  that  there  shall  be  peace  and  friendship  between  the  citizens  of  the 
two  countries,  every  citizen  of  the  United  States  is  equally  and  personally  pledged. 
The  compact  is  made  by  the  department  of  the  government  upon  which  he  himself 
has  agreed  to  confer  the  power.  It  is  his  own  personal  compact  as  a portion  of 
the  sovereignty  in  whose  behalf  it  is  made.  Amd  he  can  do  no  act,  nor  enter  into 
any  agreement  to  promote  or  encourage  revolt  or  hostilities  against  the  territories 
of  a country  with  which  our  government  is  pledged  by  treaty  to  be  at  peace,  with- 
out a breach  o]  his  duty  as  a citizen , and  the  breach  of  faith  pledged  to  the  foreign 
nation. 

From  the  foregoing  quotations,  the  authoritative  importance 
of  which  for  the  conduct  of  American  citizens  and  their  government 
is  undeniable,  it  would  appear  that: 

1.  What  is  morally  wrong  for  the  government  is  morally  wrong 
also  for  each  individual  citizen. 

2.  When  a large  number  of  individual  citizens  persist  in  the 
commission  of  acts  which  run  counter  to  the  moral  obligations  of 
their  government,  the  government  has  the  right  and  the  duty  to 
take  steps  to  prevent  such  acts. 

3.  It  is  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  American  institutions  and  the 
ideals  of  the  American  people,  for  the  government  to  disclaim 
responsibility  for  the  continued  and  open  acts  of  a large  number  of 
their  citizens. 

4.  American  dealings  with  other  nations  must  be  bona  fide  and 
according  to  the  spirit,  and  not  only  the  letter,  of  any  compact  or 
understanding. 

5.  It  is  not  unneutral  for  America  to  “ blaze  a new  way,”  or  to 
regulate  the  conduct  of  her  citizens  by  laws,  proclamations  or 
otherwise,  even  during  the  progress  of  a war. 

This  last  assertion  has  been  severely  attacked  by  the  advocates 
of  an  unlimited  trade  in  death-dealing  arms.  They  have  argued 


Exportation  of  Arms 


3 


that  the  Allies  would  be  justified  in  considering  the  laying  of  an 
embargo  on  the  export  of  arms  to  be  an  unneutral  act.  The  Allies 
could  not  claim  this,  because  they  themselves  have  forced  several — 
if  not  all  of  the  neutral  states  of  Europe — to  declare  embargoes  of 
various  kinds  against  Germany  and  Austria  since  the  war  began. 

The  case  in  favor  of  stopping  the  traffic  in  munitions  of  war, 
therefore,  may  be  summarized  as  follows: 

1.  The  government  of  the  United  States  cannot,  either  legally 
or  morally,  export  arms  to  either  of  the  belligerents. 

2.  The  export  of  arms  by  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  has 
grown  to  such  large  proportions  that  it  is  known  to  all. 

3.  The  government  of  the  United  States  cannot  advance  the 
excuse  that  it  is  not  morally  responsible  for  the  acts  of  its  citizens. 

4.  The  president  and  secretary  of  state  have  publicly  declared, 
and  asked  for  votes  on  the  strength  of  their  declaration,  that  the 
government  has  the  right  “to  blaze  a new  way”  and  that  it  is  not 
restrained  from  giving  expression  in  law  to  the  moral  sense  of  right 
and  wrong  of  the  American  people. 

5.  It  is,  therefore,  the  right  and  consequently  the  duty  of  the 
American  government  to  have  legislation  enacted  which  will  make 
it  legally  wrong  for  individual  citizens  to  commit  acts,  the  moral 
wrong  of  which  nobody  can  deny,  in  view  of  the  decision  of  the 
United  States  Supreme  Court  quoted  above. 

6.  The  present  American  government  itself  has  acknowledged 
thef  moral  wrong  of  the  trade  in  contraband,  in  the  passage 
quoted  above  from  the  Democratic  Text  Book. 

7.  It  is,  therefore,  committed  to  the  enactment  of  legislation — 
if  it  has  no  other  means  of  accomplishing  the  same  end — forbid- 
ding the  traffic  in  munitions  of  war. 


